Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal writ petitions filed by individuals who were denied renewal of their passports by the Passport Authority on the ground that criminal cases were pending against them. The petitioners, Sagar Pradeep Oak and Brahma Sheo Bharat Mall, sought directions to the Passport Authority to renew their passports. The court examined the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which allows refusal of passport only if the applicant has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The court held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denial of passport renewal. The court also considered the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that any restriction must be reasonable. The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passports subject to conditions that the petitioners deposit their passports with the trial court and undertake to appear as required. The court also clarified that the Passport Authority must independently consider the application without being influenced by the pendency of criminal cases.
Headnote
A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Renewal of Passport - Pending Criminal Proceedings - The Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of passport merely because criminal cases are pending against the applicant; the provision only applies if the applicant has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport subject to the petitioner depositing the passport with the trial court and undertaking to appear as required. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to Travel - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and any restriction must be reasonable and in accordance with law. Denial of passport renewal solely on ground of pending criminal proceedings is not a reasonable restriction. (Paras 1-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The court can impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail, including directing the accused to surrender his passport and not leave the country without permission. Such conditions are valid to secure the presence of the accused during trial. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Passport Authority can refuse to renew a passport solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, and whether the court can direct renewal subject to conditions to secure the applicant's presence during trial.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and directed the Passport Authority to renew the passports of the petitioners subject to conditions that they deposit their passports with the trial court and undertake to appear as required. The court held that the Passport Authority must independently consider the application without being influenced by the pendency of criminal cases.
Law Points
- Passport renewal cannot be denied solely on ground of pending criminal proceedings
- Passport Authority must independently consider application under Passports Act
- 1967
- Section 6(2)(f) requires conviction for offence involving moral turpitude
- Court can impose conditions to secure presence of accused
- Right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India
.png)
